San Francisco Proposes Sweeping Gun Ban

BTW, the only other major city in the U.S. to have a similar ban, Washington D.C., also has the highest murder rate of any metropolis. Go figure.

And you know what? If it doesn't work, instead of something different, they'll try more of the same.

A classic "correlation = causation" fallacy. Go figure.

Hmmm. I'm in the middle here. While I recognize that guns in the city are a different beast from guns in the country, I kind of have a problem with taking the protections away from homeowners and small business people. There was a time when I thought like cjhsa, but now having lived in a pretty large city where the very proximity of other people makes guns significantly more dangerous, I have to agree with many that gun control of some form is needed in cities -- especially those with gangs and serious drug problems.

So classic that it ignores the possibility of the reverse correlation/causation.

A collective bunch of jackasses in a position of power are far more dangerous than any weapon I own.

Yes, but are they more dangerous than the weapons that the gang-banging punks own when they shoot at each other and send stray bullets into people's homes?

in elk county here in kansas, last week, a 13 year old shot his 10 year old brother in a hunting accident...you can hunt here without parental supervision...well, now they are going to change the law ...you can be 12...lol....

We have too many gun nuts in this country. They should all be taken out behind a woodshed and shot.

Where do they get those weapons? As stated in the article, San Francisco only has three licensed gun dealers. Actually, that's a lot if you look at Minneapolis, which only has one. Weird, huh?

Only if you believe that people don't travel to buy guns or that all dealers are licensed.

Exactly my point.

If someone were going to change an opinion of mine, it would have to be someone who could at least see both sides of the issue. Didn't work, FreeDuck, but a good shot - so to speak.

Well, roger, I will try harder when I am more sure of my own position. Suffice it to say, for now, that I can see the concerns of both sides of this issue but I haven't chosen one.

There are deadly accidents that happen all the time that don't receive nearly the airtime as a "gun related accident". The anti's that control the media make sure of it. I had to wait until I was 14 to hunt with a shotgun in Michigan. Was totally prepared at 12. Went deer hunting with my Dad for years before that.

I do agree adult supervision is needed, to a point. By the time I was 15 after hunting for a year, my Dad, who is older, couldn't keep up with me. So what to do?

I dunno. Shoot him?

I'm sure you caught it, FD, but that was a compliment.

That's really mature of you, Joe.

I see both sides too. I am not entirely crazed against gun-nuts, though I don't really get it, and I am by my own thoughts antigun, I mean way back... way into despair at the development of weaponry over time.

Let me just go ahead and postulate that most gun nuts are safety trained, though of course things happen, sometimes something horrible. And that most anti violence folks have a glimmer of violent behavior/thought in themselves from time to time, so we aren't so different - it's about arming up, or not.

However, the gross distribution by various means of relatively advanced weaponry, at least vis a vis the knife and club, makes it really tough on people who have a clue that communication, discussion, trading, intermarrying, have any value. War-on-you posturing leaps to the forefront. So neighborhood life often gets shut down by fear of immature people with guns, sometimes very advanced weapons. I lived in such a place.

So, while I understand both points of view, I see community life hanging in the balance between accelerating internecine warfare, and people discussing and solving problems.

I don't care about all the wording arguments re the constitution. I don't think any founding father of the United States, centuries ago, made a mental jump to a rambo in every house when thinking the community should have a militia.

What tilts my view towards diminution of weapons, aside from my almost inborn abhorrence for various good reasons,
is my underlying sense that all of us, locally and globally, would fare better by working out together how to sustain healthy growth without decimating ourselves or the land by war or any kind of pillage.